Hospital nurse staffing and patient outcomes in Chile: a multilevel cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Unrest in Chile over inequalities has underscored the need to improve public hospitals. Nursing has been overlooked as a solution to quality and access concerns, and nurse staffing is poor by international standards. Using Chile's new diagnosis-related groups system and surveys of nurses and patients, we provide information to policy makers on feasibility, net costs, and estimated improved outcomes associated with increasing nursing resources in public hospitals. METHODS: For this multilevel cross-sectional study, we used data from surveys of hospital nurses to measure staffing and work environments in public and private Chilean adult high-complexity hospitals, which were linked with patient satisfaction survey and discharge data from the national diagnosis-related groups database for inpatients. All adult patients on medical and surgical units whose conditions permitted and who had been hospitalised for more than 48 h were invited to participate in the patient experience survey until 50 responses were obtained in each hospital. We estimated associations between nurse staffing and work environment quality with inpatient 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, length of stay (LOS), patient experience, and care quality using multilevel random-effects logistic regression models and zero-truncated negative binomial regression models, with clustering of patients within hospitals. FINDINGS: We collected and analysed surveys of 1652 hospital nurses from 40 hospitals (34 public and six private), satisfaction surveys of 2013 patients, and discharge data for 761 948 inpatients. Nurse staffing was significantly related to all outcomes, including mortality, after adjusting for patient characteristics, and the work environment was related to patient experience and nurses' quality assessments. Each patient added to nurses' workloads increased mortality (odds ratio 1·04, 95% CI 1·01-1·07, p<0·01), readmissions (1·02, 1·01-1·03, p<0·01), and LOS (incident rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 1·01-1·06, p<0·05). Nurse workloads across hospitals varied from six to 24 patients per nurse. Patients in hospitals with 18 patients per nurse, compared with those in hospitals with eight patients per nurse, had 41% higher odds of dying, 20% higher odds of being readmitted, 41% higher odds of staying longer, and 68% lower odds of rating their hospital highly. We estimated that savings from reduced readmissions and shorter stays would exceed the costs of adding nurses by US$1·2 million and $5·4 million if the additional nurses resulted in average workloads of 12 or ten patients per nurse, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Improved hospital nurse staffing in Chile was associated with lower inpatient mortality, higher patient satisfaction, fewer readmissions, and shorter hospital stays, suggesting that greater investments in nurses could return higher quality of care and greater value. FUNDING: Sigma Theta Tau International, University of Pennsylvania Global Engagement Fund, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing's Center for Health Outcomes, and Policy Research and Population Research Center. TRANSLATION: For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Evaluating the Costs and Outcomes of Hospital Nursing Resources: a Matched Cohort Study of Patients with Common Medical Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Nursing resources, such as staffing ratios and skill mix, vary across hospitals. Better nursing resources have been linked to better patient outcomes but are assumed to increase costs. The value of investments in nursing resources, in terms of clinical benefits relative to costs, is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differential clinical outcomes, costs, and value among medical patients at hospitals characterized by better or worse nursing resources. DESIGN: Matched cohort study of patients in 306 acute care hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 74,045 matched pairs of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries admitted for common medical conditions (25,446 sepsis pairs; 16,332 congestive heart failure pairs; 12,811 pneumonia pairs; 10,598 stroke pairs; 8858 acute myocardial infarction pairs). Patients were also matched on hospital size, technology, and teaching status. MAIN MEASURES: Better (n = 76) and worse (n = 230) nursing resourced hospitals were defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses, and nurse work environments. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and resource utilization-based costs. KEY RESULTS: Patients in hospitals with better nursing resources had significantly lower 30-day mortality (16.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.0001) and fewer readmissions (32.3% vs 33.6%, p < 0.0001) yet costs were not significantly different ($18,848 vs 18,671, p = 0.133). The greatest outcomes and cost advantage of better nursing resourced hospitals were in patients with sepsis who had lower mortality (25.3% vs 27.6%, p < 0.0001). Overall, patients with the highest risk of mortality on admission experienced the greatest reductions in mortality and readmission from better nursing at no difference in cost. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with common medical conditions admitted to hospitals with better nursing resources experienced more favorable outcomes at almost no difference in cost.

Comparison of the Value of Nursing Work Environments in Hospitals Across Different Levels of Patient Risk.

IMPORTANCE: The literature suggests that hospitals with better nursing work environments provide better quality of care. Less is known about value (cost vs quality). OBJECTIVES: To test whether hospitals with better nursing work environments displayed better value than those with worse nursing environments and to determine patient risk groups associated with the greatest value. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective matched-cohort design, comparing the outcomes and cost of patients at focal hospitals recognized nationally as having good nurse working environments and nurse-to-bed ratios of 1 or greater with patients at control group hospitals without such recognition and with nurse-to-bed ratios less than 1. This study included 25 752 elderly Medicare general surgery patients treated at focal hospitals and 62 882 patients treated at control hospitals during 2004-2006 in Illinois, New York, and Texas. The study was conducted between January 1, 2004, and November 30, 2006; this analysis was conducted from April to August 2015. EXPOSURES: Focal vs control hospitals (better vs worse nursing environment). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Thirty-day mortality and costs reflecting resource utilization. RESULTS: This study was conducted at 35 focal hospitals (mean nurse-to-bed ratio, 1.51) and 293 control hospitals (mean nurse-to-bed ratio, 0.69). Focal hospitals were larger and more teaching and technology intensive than control hospitals. Thirty-day mortality in focal hospitals was 4.8% vs 5.8% in control hospitals (P < .001), while the cost per patient was similar: the focal-control was -$163 (95% CI = -$542 to $215; P = .40), suggesting better value in the focal group. For the focal vs control hospitals, the greatest mortality benefit (17.3% vs 19.9%; P < .001) occurred in patients in the highest risk quintile, with a nonsignificant cost difference of $941 per patient ($53 701 vs $52 760; P = .25). The greatest difference in value between focal and control hospitals appeared in patients in the second-highest risk quintile, with mortality of 4.2% vs 5.8% (P < .001), with a nonsignificant cost difference of -$862 ($33 513 vs $34 375; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospitals with better nursing environments and above-average staffing levels were associated with better value (lower mortality with similar costs) compared with hospitals without nursing environment recognition and with below-average staffing, especially for higher-risk patients. These results do not suggest that improving any specific hospital's nursing environment will necessarily improve its value, but they do show that patients undergoing general surgery at hospitals with better nursing environments generally receive care of higher value.

Implications of the California nurse staffing mandate for other states.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nurse staffing in California hospitals, where state-mandated minimum nurse-to-patient ratios are in effect, differs from two states without legislation and whether those differences are associated with nurse and patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Primary survey data from 22,336 hospital staff nurses in California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey in 2006 and state hospital discharge databases. STUDY DESIGN: Nurse workloads are compared across the three states and we examine how nurse and patient outcomes, including patient mortality and failure-to-rescue, are affected by the differences in nurse workloads across the hospitals in these states. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: California hospital nurses cared for one less patient on average than nurses in the other states and two fewer patients on medical and surgical units. Lower ratios are associated with significantly lower mortality. When nurses' workloads were in line with California-mandated ratios in all three states, nurses' burnout and job dissatisfaction were lower, and nurses reported consistently better quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital nurse staffing ratios mandated in California are associated with lower mortality and nurse outcomes predictive of better nurse retention in California and in other states where they occur.

Has the Chinese family planning policy been successful in changing fertility preferences?

Has China's strict one-child policy been successful in changing fertility preferences? Using linked data from surveys conducted in four counties of northern China in 1991 and 1994, we compare reproductive behavior against prior fertility preferences and show when and where women change from wanting to not wanting more children. The acceptance of policy-sanctioned family size follows a development gradient and reflects the degree of enforcement. High acceptance occurs in the most urban, industrialized county and in the county with the most rigid family planning policy. Acceptance is weaker among women living in the poorest county and in the county where enforcement is most lenient.